> A
!
_ c h 2,199;
s
Outlaw or
ave a real
/ who had
■ebounds,
rebounds
run which
e.
pcond half
v" Ander-
?bounded
; o the mo-
ito their
chance to
“cond half.
Jt to eight
ne. Chuck
1 ball over
^ars even-
ee throws
es get any
'ercent of
ding 19 of
ictory.
rcentages
aid.. "The
at some
going to
we strug-
ites of the
’as the dif-
ection im-
cM hit 56
nd 58 per-
ange.
ooting 43
1 this sea-
la ree-point
•ting is a
team."
named his
rveek, was
ne with a
ut it when
said. "But
basket), it
g falling,
the right
s and just
ch Tony
's attitude
is success
,’ho comes /
v anting to
He shows
■thing bad
ut and get
ion a sur-
)f produc-
cen a sur-
itude."
*am
hth
e 5
"This could
iatch, but the
gutted it up
play of Rid
his singles
iT)onald, 6T
icd with Ben
des match,
is did every-
Rick seemed
lay."
turday:
illips lost to
6-4. (
Vlartinez lost
te defeated
ul 6-2,6-2.
ens was do’
az, 6-4,4-6, d-
liclas Lundin
is swept thd
Weaver over
3, 6-2.
salou defeat-
i 6-1,3-6,64.
Paul Doman-
datt Dabbs 6
Naumann ^
nie Gade d-ft
)d White 6-1,
iez beat
eated Na u
ed.
[Monday,
March 2, 1992
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7
The Battalion Editorial Board
DOUGLAS PILS, Editor-in-Chief
BRIDGET HARROW, Managing Editor
BRIAN BONEY, Opinion Editor
JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor
MORGAN JUDAY. Night News Editor
MACK HARRISON, City Editor
KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor
SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor
ROB NEWBERRY, Lifestyles Editor
Persian Gulf War
Should the United States
have continued the Gulf War?
PRO
jr
>. m
■ ..
s — 1
Brian
Michael
Boney
Sullivan
In Iraq, Kurds
and Shiites
cower in terror,
fearing the
retribution of
their
government.
United Nations
inspectors,
scouring the country to find nuclear
production centers and weapons
sights, are kept from examining and
destroying the machines of Hussein's
war. Iraqi children, sick from the most
basic of human diseases, die painfully
because they cannot acquire
nourishment and medicine, all of
which must be withheld by the
international community to make sure
Hussein's troops don't take the
supplies to rebuild their army.
This is what has become of our
"new world order."
Tomorrow marks the first
anniversary of the signing of the
cease-fire papers halting the war in
Iraq. The war fought to restore
balance to the Middle East and to end
"naked aggression" by Iraq has
instead turned into a political victory
for the leader we so desperately
wanted to depose.
The term phrase "kissing your
sister," a term used by coaches to
explain the psychological benefit of a
tie game, applies best to this situation.
The U.S. military and its coalition
allies a year ago were routing the Iraqi
military, the same organization that
had invaded, pillaged and raped an
almost defenseless neighbor. Yet at
the time we were in position to wipe
this force form the face of the Earth,
we stopped, thereby letting a
murderous thug to remain in charge
of his ravaged country.
The same situation occurred in
1941. The German Army had routed
the Soviets at every battle. The Red
Army, bloodied and broken, retreated
into the country's vast interior.
German generals looked with hungry
anticipation at the uncontested path
that lay ahead to the Soviet capital city
of Moscow. With its fall, the Germans
could knock one of the major Allied
from the war, thereby securing
Germany's hold on Europe.
But Adolph Hitler d awdled,
splitting forces, assigning units to
secondary objectives. He never took
Moscow. The Soviets recovered from
their initial defeat to beat back the
Germans.
The same is in store for us.
We had the opportunity to end the
regime of one of the world's most
hutal dictator's, yet we chose the side
°f political stalemate.
Hussein is still in power, licking his
founds in preparation for a new
Battle. A future battle against him or
Bis followers will fought by our
children because we didn't have the
stomach to end his brutality when we
Bad the chance.
When the Saudis heard we were
about to stop our onslaught, they
Wer e aghast. When the Kuwaitis, their
country torn apart, heard we were
stopping some wept.America reverted
0 its modern past, ending a war it
c °uld have won and leaving others to
CON
Boney is a senior education
certification major
March 3 marks
the anniversary of
the end of the so-
called Gulf War, a
conflict in which
the United States
once again proved
itself a world
leader. The U.S.
Armed Forces reacted with a level of
professionalism and dedication which
has no equal in today's topsy-turvy
world. The people of America united
under common goals: to free Kuwait
from Saddam Hussein, keep the supply
of oil open and retain influence in the
region— goals which were achieved
quicklv and with relatively little loss of
life.
From that day nearly a year ago, on
through today, a debate has raged:
Should the Coalition forces have
removed Hussein from power? The
answer is not an easy one, with its
basis found in the original United
Nations mandate.
When Saddam Hussein invaded the
nation of Kuwait, the United Nations
called upon him to remove his troops
peacefully, or else. That "or else"
meant the forceful removal of Iraqi
troops from Kuwait. The purpose was
to reinstate the rightful leader of
Kuwait. Notice that the mandate called
for the freeing of Kuwait and the
restoration of its government.
Nothing else.
True, Hussein is a madman capable
of who knows what. True also, he is a
volatile unknown in an unstable
region. And, true, he should not be the
leader of anything, much less a sizable,
potentially nuclear-capable nation.
But it was not our place to remove
him.
The United States is a founding
member of the United Nations, with a
permanent seat on the Security
Council. This grants our nation a great
deal Of power, but power with
responsibility.
When the United Nations passes a
mandate, and the United States agrees
to be its enforcer, that mandate is the
guiding principle, the law, of the
conflict. If the United States and
Coalition forces had taken the mandate
a step further and removed Saddam
Hussein from power, we would have
been as guilty of breaking the law as
Hussein himself.
While it may well have been, and
still be, in the best interest of all to
remove Hussein, to do so would have
been as wrong as what he did.
The United States had the military
might to remove Hussein and set up a
government amicable to the United
Nations and the United States. We still
do. If the people of the United States
want Hussein out of power, then let's
declare war on Iraq and hit them with
everything we have.
But we can never confuse our
policies as a nation and the mandates
of the United Nations that we agree to
uphold. For when we do, when we
bully other countries while hiding
behind a U.N. agreement, we will be as
guilty as those like Hussein.
Given all this, here is my answer:
No, we should not have gone on into
Baghdad and removed Hussein.
Sullivan is a senior
English major
(gjj|) WIT POUj
YES, I'M VOTIMG FOR PAT BUCHANAN TO MAKE A STATEN ENT/’
Shamir keeps and building and building and building'...
November of my discontent
Upcoming elections pose dilemma for lifelong conservative
A ll three of my regular
readers may be shocked at
what they are about to read.
They know that 1 have been a staunch
Republican since before I was even
born. Or I have been at least since I
developed a sense of political
consciousness sometime early in high
school. To you
three, who are
not using the
Battalion to
protect
yourselves from
the driving rain
of the Bryan-
College Station
monsoon season,
1 must admit that
I will not be
voting to re-elect
George Bush this
year. In fact, I
have even considered voting for Paul
Tsongas if he is nominated by the
Democrats. His nomination, however,
is not a likely scenario. Pro-business
sentiments are not exactly a
trademark of the Democratic party, as
they conflict with the traditional role
assigned business by liberals. In their
twisted world, where the laws of
sense no longer apply, one can tax the
pants off of corporations to pay for
entitlement programs, and, at the
same time, blame the same businesses
for laying off employees and turning
them into more Democrats.
However, this does not explain my
discontent with President Bush.
Notice that I did not claim to have
lost my faith in principled
conservatives. I just don't know if
such people exist anymore. At one
time, I was of the opinion that George
was a conservative who stood for
certain fundamental concepts. His
actions (and certain episodes of
inaction) have done much to dispel
this belief. He undoubtedly has some
principles left, but they seem to have
been submerged in a miasma of
pragmatism and political realities.
Perhaps this is to be expected when
one spends time amongst unsavory
characters such as senators and
representatives.
Let's beat a dead horse and talk
about "no new taxes", for example.
This is a central tenet of the right-
wing, anti-big government faith to
which I suscribe, and to which Bush
was once thought to adhere. Imagine
the surprise and sense of betrayal
which many conservatives felt at his
repugnant compromise with a
criminally incompetent legislative
branch. In raising taxes, known in
some disreputable circle^ ; as
supplementing governmental
revenue, he fed the proverbial canary
to the proverbial cat, and even wiped
the drool from its proverbial chin
afterwards. The smile on that cat as it
converted each additional dollar of
revenue into $1.50 of additional
spending must have been a sight to
see. I imagine it as being something
like the smile a defense lawyer gets
after winning an acquittal on a
technicality, the kind of smile that
gives one the irresistible urge to
remove his lips with a pair of pliers.
Obviously, it is difficult to imagine
how the most prominent Republican
in the world could allow this to
happen.
President Bush's trip to Japan did
very little to boost his standing in
these jaded eyes. His retinue of
American corporate leaders looked
like a pack of whining brats clinging
to daddy's pants leg and pointing out
the bully who stole their GI Joe dolls.
The Japanese prime minister's
comment later to the effect that he
had not made any hard and fast
promises to buy more American cars
pointed out the uselessness of the
whole visit. Furthermore, Bush's
claim that U.S. products were the best
in the world, while sounding great tc
blue-collar workers, was seen by
others as the ridiculous propaganda
that it is. If that were the case, there
would be no need to enact
protectionist trade measures except to
save scarce landfill space from all the
unwanted 300 Z's and Sony
televisions.
Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, President Bush's
insistence on granting most favored
nation trade status to the murdering
totalitarian regime in China is an
inexplicable contradiction of our most
basic political beliefs as Americans.
The very heritage of the United States
as a nation "conceived in liberty"
demands that we avoid what
amounts to an outright condonement
of Beijing's brutal conduct. What
makes Bush's position even more
unbelievable is his recent statement in
reference to Cuba, who, as we all
know, has been a staunch defender of
self-determination and human rights.
President Bush said: "...we have
absolutely no intention of agreeing to
a normal relationship with a
government that denies its people
universally accepted civil and human
rights, economic opportunity, and
freedom of choice on matters that
affect their own future." Apparently,
this holds true for all nations except
those whose names begin with a C
and end with an A four letters later.
What is a lifelong conservative
to do? I can neither vote for Bush, nor
can I stomach some of the extreme
positions of Pat Buchanan (though at
least he believes in something and is
willing to stick to it). Somewhere,
sometime I heard a saying that goes
something like this: "A man who
won't stand for something will stand
for anything." This year, it looks like
I I'll be standing for the Libertarians.
Loughman is a
senior journalism major
Jason
Loughman
Mail Call
Israeli diplay
shows injustice
On Monday and Tuesday of the
International Week, I had the
opportunity to visit the cultural
displays of the International week. I
helped set up the Egyptian booth and
was privy to all that went on between
the Palestinians and the Israeli
occupants of Palestine. That is why I
was not surprised to read the letter of
Ms. Sernik on Thursday of that week.
What the accounts of the lives of
human beings like you and me in
Palestine. And the 'literature' was not
'taken away' by the organizers. The
Israelis are people who generate hate
and they brought that hate with them
to the International week.
To me, as an Egyptian Muslim, the
whole Israeli display was offensive. I
am shocked and disgusted that the
Israeli's have the audacity to claim
that their 'culture' includes Muslims
and Christians. Have we forgotten the
meaning of Goyyim?!
I am an Egyptian and I absolutely
denounce Israel and the occupation of
Palestine. No true Muslim Egyptian
will ever say that the state of Israel
had any legitimacy at all in the sight
of God.
If indeed the objective of the week
was to learn about other cultures, then
we have to realize that Palestinian
culture today has, deeply engraved in
it, the struggle of Palestinians against
the Zionist Israeli occupation.
No experience can claim to be
unifying unless all its elements are
based on justice, in the International
Week, the Israelis were the
embodiment of injustice.
Hisham Moharram
Graduate Student
Have an opinion?
Express it!
The Battalion is interested
in hearing from its readers.
All letters to the editor are
welcome.
Letters must be signed and
must include classification,
address and a daytime phone
number for verification
purposes. Anonymous letters
will not be published.
The Battalion reserves the
right to edit all letters for
length, style and accuracy.
There is no guarantee that
letters will appear.
Letters may be brought to
013 Reed McDonald, sent to
Campus Mail Stop 1111 or
can be faxed to 845-2647.